International Journal of Managing Projects in Business

Factors influencing project management effectiveness in the Malaysian local

councils
Choon Hee Ong, Taufik Bahar,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Choon Hee Ong, Taufik Bahar, (2019) "Factors influencing project management effectiveness
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:33 27 March 2019 (PT)

in the Malaysian local councils", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-09-2018-0200
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-09-2018-0200
Downloaded on: 27 March 2019, At: 09:33 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 80 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 19 times since 2019*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:320271 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1753-8378.htm

Project
Factors influencing project management
management effectiveness in the effectiveness

Malaysian local councils

Choon Hee Ong and Taufik Bahar
Azman Hashim International Business School,
Received 28 September 2018
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Malaysia Revised 30 November 2018
Accepted 12 December 2018
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:33 27 March 2019 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between top management support,
project mission (PM), synergy and project management effectiveness (PME) in the Malaysian local councils.
It also attempts to analyze the relative importance and performance of the predictor constructs on the target
construct for managerial actions.
Design/methodology/approach – Primary data based on 169 respondents were collected and analyzed
using PLS-SEM to assess validity, reliability, hypothesis testing and importance-performance matrix analysis
(IPMA) of the study constructs.
Findings – PM and synergy were found to be significantly and positively associated with PME. However,
top management support was not related to PME. Synergy has the highest relative importance level in
influencing PME and it is regarded as the most relevant construct for managerial actions.
Research limitations/implications – This study examines the significant factors that contribute to the
effectiveness of project management in the local councils. It forms a basis for other state local councils to
emulate the research model and compare the findings among different project teams in different locations.
Practical implications – The IPMA identifies synergy as a primary important construct for project
management activities. It explains PME is linked with extensive collaboration, inter-departmental relations,
interpersonal coordination and close liaisons.
Originality/value – This study is among the few that examines factors influencing PME in the Malaysian
local councils. Inclusion of synergy as one of the predictor constructs will definitely help to improve the
well-functioning and coordination of the project.
Keywords Project communication, Project effectiveness, Project leadership, Project objectives
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Effectiveness in project management measures how well the project managers handle the
project from the beginning until the end (Petro and Gardiner, 2015; Serrador and Turner,
2015). It includes defining the project scope, procurement processes, monitoring the
project and submitting payments to the treasury office within a stipulated period. Project
management effectiveness (PME) is relying on a few critical success factors such as top
management support, clear goals/objectives, realistic schedule and adequate resources
(Fortune et al., 2011). These are the most usually identified factors. However, the critical
aspects of PME require coordination and integration of bilateral exertions of the client and
its providers (Wang et al., 2018). Project management requires collective attention and
coordination among the critical success factors to improve the likelihood of effectiveness
and successful implementation (Pinto and Slevin, 1987). As the project contents grow and
become more complex, project management comprises more layers and sub-layers of
project activities. These layers of activities encompass various aspects, resources and
locations. Thus, synergy allows each section and component of the project to be
comprehensively connected and integrated to make the project successful (Chan et al.,
2009). If projects are not synergized and managed effectively, it is very likely the project
International Journal of Managing
will fail. Based on the Malaysian Road Record Information System statistics, the total Projects in Business
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1753-8378
The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. DOI 10.1108/IJMPB-09-2018-0200
 IJMPB expenditure for Johor state road maintenance has been increasing at 40 percent over three
years from 2014 to 2017. However, the project payments were not able to handle
effectively at the end of the closing date, causing some of the payments would be paid only
in the following year. This situation has affected the percentage of allocation given by the
Federal Government in the following year. Project funding poses a significant challenge
for state governments in Malaysia since the funding sourced is subjected to specified
criteria and parameters. This financial support comes with conditionality which affects
the project from the pre-planning stage throughout the entire project lifecycle. Apart from
projects that are reflecting the requirements and meeting the development needs of the
expected beneficiaries, ineffective project management often puts a spanner in the wheel
resulting in delays, changes in scope and occasionally an abrupt cancellation of a project.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:33 27 March 2019 (PT)

These challenges in project management have an impact on the overall quality and
effectiveness of a project. Owing to the above reasons, this study aims to discover factors
that influence PME in the local councils in Johor, Malaysia.
Past studies have identified many critical success factors for project management such
as top management support (Pinto, 1986; Pinto and Slevin, 1989; Wateridge, 1995), project
mission (PM) (Pinto, 1986; Pinto and Slevin, 1989; Clarke, 1999; Cooke-Davies, 2002),
technical task ability (Pinto, 1986; Kerzner, 1987; Pinto and Slevin, 1989), urgency of project
(Pinto and Slevin, 1989; Wateridge, 1995), project manager leadership/empowerment (Pinto,
1986; Kerzner, 1987; Pinto and Slevin, 1989; Wateridge, 1995; Muller and Turner, 2005),
personnel/teamwork (Pinto, 1986; Kerzner, 1987; Pinto and Slevin, 1989, Wateridge, 1995;
Belout, 1998; Cooke-Davies, 2002; Muller and Turner, 2005). The selection of PM, top
management support and synergy as the predictors of PME was based on the theoretical
basis of project implementation profile (PIP) introduced by Slevin and Pinto (1986).
The model of PIP is of great importance to project management since it represents a
framework for effective project implantation (Slevin and Pinto, 1986). The Ten Factor Model
formed the basis for the PIP model where the first two factors consist of PM and top
management support. PM is the first initial step to clarify the goals and direction of the
project. The mission of the project should be clearly defined so that we understand
the project’s intention, why it is necessary and where it is going. After obtaining a clear PM,
it is imperative to gain the support of top management. Top management is responsible for
improving the maturity of the organization in managing projects especially in a highly
bureaucratic organization and high power distance cultural context like Malaysia. Without
the support of top management, the project may be perceived as unimportant and
unnecessary by the members of the organization. By providing vocal and visible support,
top management directly influences the effectiveness of project management in terms of on
time project delivery and complete within the stipulated time, cost and scope ( Jurka et al.,
2015). In addition to the top two factors, we attempt to introduce synergy as a condition
necessary for combined actions and cooperation among team members to accomplish
project objectives. The inclusion of synergy will add value to the existing body of
knowledge where it covers various aspects of integration, linkages, communication,
coordination, traceability and accessibility in project management. The synergy component
is to be tested with top management support and PM to improve PME. The main reasons for
undertaking this study are the increasing expense in road maintenance projects and
inability to handle them with on-time delivery. Therefore, it is the intention of this research
to develop an effective project management model by investigating and testing factors
(i.e. PM, top management support, synergy) that contribute toward PME and recommend
managerial actions to overcome the state road maintenance issues. The research model will
be conducted in the context of public organizations (i.e. state local councils) in Malaysia.
It operationally defines project management as a form of coordination among the related
parties in the local councils (i.e. public mechanical department, city maintenance unit,
 quantity surveyor department and financial department) and PME as the extent the project Project
is able to meet its objectives, quality standard set by specifications, desired cost and management
complete on-time. Given the fact that there is a paucity of empirical studies on factors effectiveness
influencing PME in Malaysia, this study seeks to bridge the gap by raising the below
research questions:
RQ1. What is the relationship between top management support and PME in the state
local councils?
RQ2. What is the relationship between PM and PME in the state local councils?
RQ3. What is the relationship between synergy and PME in the state local councils?
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:33 27 March 2019 (PT)

Literature review and hypothesis development

Project management effectiveness
There are varieties of methods to define project management (Sætre and Atkinson, 2006).
Details articles were written way back by Olsen (1971) directly to what degree project
management essentially can be outlined. In the 1950s, the description of project
management was a group of tools and techniques, characters and technologies to explain
the utilization of different resources to complete a complex project within the time limit,
defined cost and expected outcomes (Olsen, 1971). An alternative definition, from 1996
onwards, outlines project management as the scheduling and supervising of all phases of
a project, to accomplish the set goals within particular duration, cost, quality and
performance (Atkinson, 1999). However, the UK Association of Project Management gives
different interpretation of project management. It defines project management as
designing, managing, monitoring, observing and regulating all components of a project to
achieve project goals accurately and within the stipulated time, cost and overall
performance (Atkinson, 1999). In recent years, Selnes and Mandson (2015) defines project
management as planning, monitoring and control of all phases of a project, and motivation
of the project team to achieve set objectives within the stipulated time, cost, quality and
performance. This definition is almost similar with the one in 1990s. Nevertheless,
effectiveness is a measurement on how well the organization and employees perform
value-creating tasks and how well their functions work together and being coordinated
(Mehta and Mehta, 2017; De Cooman et al., 2016). Effectiveness ought to be applied in
various structures of an organization or business activities to gain positive outcomes
(Petro and Gardiner, 2015). From the managerial perspective, a business is able to operate
efficiently if the people are performing their required tasks effectively (Fung, 2015).
The more consistent employees perform their tasks adequately with proper use of
technology, communication skills, knowledge sharing, problem solving skills,
organizational relationship and high impact resources, the higher the rate of
effectiveness will be obtained (Petro and Gardiner, 2015). In the context of project
management, effectiveness can be related to satisfying requirements, objectives and
priorities of the stakeholders (meeting expectations) and how the project provide
value-added activities to the owners (business) and customers (benefits and delivery)
(Zidane and Olsson, 2017). Samset (1998) claimed that effectiveness reflects the outcome of
the project or realization of the project and its consequences. Generally, it can be
understood that effectiveness is associated with project success (Ika et al., 2010).
Nevertheless, a successful project can vary based on these definitions in corresponding to
the set of standards comprising cost, time and quality. In project management, the term
effectiveness and efficiency are not interchangeable but sometimes they were considered
synonymous with a variety of meanings and interpretations. Therefore, it is important to
differentiate these two concepts in project management. Some researchers use these terms
 IJMPB when describing a way to improve project management methodology ( Joslin and Müller,
2016). Other researchers like Zidane and Olsson (2017) apply them in how to improve
components of the project management practices (e.g. leadership, communication, project
teams, organization, project members, cost, time, quality, support tools and many others).
Some researchers deployed Drucker’s (2000) famous expression: “management is doing
things right; leadership is doing the right things,” where they contemplated top
management as project management success. According to Pinto and Slevin (1988), the
process of handling a project is a constant challenge to its manager from the very
beginning. A project’s complexity requires its manager to have the ability to cope with a
variety of problems and issues related to human, financial and technical dimensions.
Dweiri and Kablan (2006) argued that effectiveness is measured or evaluated as a function
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:33 27 March 2019 (PT)

of the degree to which project goals are achieved, while efficiency is measured as a
function of achieving the project’s dateline, budget and technical specification. However,
De Carvalho et al. (2015) stated that project success is associated with the components of
efficiency and effectiveness. The success of a project is determined by how well the project
contributes to the achievement of the organization’s strategic objectives (effectiveness)
and how well the project has been accomplished (efficiency). Generally, in an
organizational environment, projects are ways to implement strategies. Therefore, a
project’s goals have to be directly connected to the organization’s strategic goals. Dvir
et al. (2010) reinforced the concept of project success toward efficiency and effectiveness.
Meeting deadline and budget goals indicate that a project has been controlled effectively.
For instance, most projects are part of their organization’s strategic management and
should be evaluated based on their contributions to the business results (effectiveness).
This statement is consistent with the study of De Carvalho et al. (2015). Generally, project
objectives should be related and linked directly to the strategic objectives of the
organization. The effectiveness of any project is determined by how well the project
contributes to the achievement of the organization’s objectives whereas efficiency is
measured by how well the project was conducted. In this study, PME was understood as
the extent to which the project is managed to meet its objectives (doing the right things),
provide business and benefits to its stakeholders and complete within the timeframe,
desired cost and quality (Zidane and Olsson, 2017).

Top management support

Top management is defined as the top-ranking executives like the chairman, chief
executive officer, managing director, president, executive directors and the owners
who have accounted for the entire organization (Kerzner, 2018). Top management
interprets policy and procedures ( formulated through the board of directors) into goals,
objectives, strategies and project a shared-vision of the future (Andersson and Chapman,
2017). Their decision will affect everyone in the organization and is held entirely
responsible for the success or failure of the organization (Davis, 2017). Most of the time,
top management provides direction in ensuring project management is aligned with the
organization strategic goals. They assist to resolve issues or conflicts around the project
(Rahikkala et al., 2015). Top management support is able to influence project performance
via its processes such as appointment of project managers, creating a supportive project
organizational structure, allocation of project resources and implementing project
procedures (Zwikael, 2008). For this research, top management support is referred to the
President of the local council and senior executives in the organization. The review of
literature discloses that top management support has been identified as critical for
project success over the past three decades, starting from Pinto and Slevin (1987) up
to the recent works, such as Fortune and White (2006), Besner and Hobbs (2008),
Zwikael (2008), Boonstra (2013) and Manfreda and Indihar Štemberger (2014). The term
 top management support implies financial, material and human support provided to a Project
project team to make the project successful. Involvement and participation of top-level management
management in a project or organizational activities is defined as top management effectiveness
support (Tan and Md. Noor, 2013).
Top management support is one of the identified factors to make project a success and
considered as a root factor for other boundaries (Ali and Kidd, 2014). It indicates that a
project tends to have higher level of success if top management support is practiced in the
organization (Zwikael, 2008). In addition, it was found that top management support is
able to reduce project lead time in the rapidly changing market (Swink, 1999; Mullins and
Sutherland, 1998). According to Guns (1996), top management support is able to create an
environment for fast learning and increase effectiveness of the project management
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:33 27 March 2019 (PT)

throughout its implementation. Some of the research works show that lack of top
management support is a significant difficulty in handling the projects well (Burgess et al.,
2005). While inadequate support from top management is a major challenge for many
projects and business processes (Aparecida da Silva et al., 2012). As explained by Zwikael
(2008), top management support has correlated highly with project effectiveness and
considered one of the critical success factors in project management, while effective
executive involvement can significantly lead to project success. In line with this
explanation, Ahmed and Azmi bin Mohamad (2016) found that there is a significant
relationship between multi-dimensional top management support and project success.
According to Young and Poon (2013), it was empirically proven that there is an evidence
of top management support for project success and effectiveness. As a result, top
management support is considered a critical factor for successful project completion and it
is the most cited factor contributing to project effectiveness in the project management
literature (Fortune and White, 2006; Young and Jordan, 2008). Based on the above
discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. Top management support has a significant positive relationship with PME.

Project mission
PM is a short, well-crafted message focuses on the critical project objectives and aligns
everyone’s work to the same goals (Gupta, 2016). It is a compelling statement that enables
build commitment to the project throughout various backgrounds and interests.
It expresses the need of the project’s customer, the value of the project that brings to the
company and the critical project parameters to achieve both goals. PM statement provides
clarity and focuses on the project team. For this study, PM is associated with how the
project team can complete the project within the budget provided, within the time
frame and meet the specific quality and specification. PM is part of the overall missions of
the local councils to serve the public with necessary amenities. The local council is
accountable for the use of public fund to ensure the public received best services and
infrastructures in the society.
Numerous authors (Morris, 1983; Fortune and White, 2006; Mir and Pinnington, 2014)
have mentioned the significance of clearly defined mission as well as ultimate
benefits at the outsets of a project. For instance, Morris (1983) mentioned that the
initial stage of project management consists of a feasibility mission. In that research,
PM has been defined as a circumstance in which the target of the project is clear and
understood, not only by the project team involved but the other departments within the
organization. Besides, from the research performed by Fortune and White (2006),
they discovered that clear PM and objectives were the most mentioned factor in the
survey and selected by 87 percent of the respondents. Projects mission ought to be formulated
correctly to give members a common goal in increasing both quality and effectiveness.
 IJMPB Additionally, it assists team member to follow procedures, operating guidelines
and coordinated processes to achieve accuracy and clarity. According to Mir
and Pinnington (2014), PM focuses on key performance indexes that indicate results
achieved in meeting requirements of the project stakeholders. The results of the study
indicated that PM has a direct impact on project effectiveness. The study also mentioned PM
has the most wide-ranging impacts on different variables of project success. Hence, it is
hypothesized that:
H2. PM has a significant positive relationship with PME.

Synergy
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:33 27 March 2019 (PT)

The idea of synergy refers to the combined effort of resources to generate outcomes more
than the additive impact of individuality. The collaborative outcomes are the sharing of the
resources to achieving organizational goals. As mentioned by Davis and Scaffidi-Clarke
(2016) and Dhurup et al. (2016), interaction amongst individuals in a team may lead
to the creation of synergistic knowledge within a team which is beyond the
knowledge initially held by individual members. Synergy may be conceptualized within
few resources (e.g. between competencies and practices) or between different organizational
resources (Dhurup et al., 2016). In the present study, synergy represents the combined
resources between different departments in each of the local councils in implementing the
project. Synergy is required to have great collaboration amongst associated departments to
make sure that project management is handled effectively. Each project team which has
different disciplines, goals and culture should merge into a single cohesive and collective
supporting unit (Baiden et al., 2006).
The concept of synergy fits closely with the concept of team integration. In the project
implementation context, team integration often refers to collaborative working practices,
methods and behaviors that promote an environment where the information is freely
exchanged among the numerous parties. Various skills and knowledge can be shared in
the integrated project team. At the same time, gaps or barriers can be removed to
make project management more effective and enhance the speed of project delivery
(Baiden et al., 2006). On the other hand, synergy is the necessary atmosphere for combined
actions and cooperation among team members. Synergy occurs when team members are
effective at sharing their insights, knowledge and experiences toward the common
objectives (Philip, 1984). Synergy promotes greater communication among project
participants. Effective communication is able to address problems and encourage project
members to interact to resolve issues around the project. With synergy, the doors between
departments will be opened in coordinating and managing the projects. It will reduce
inefficiencies and redundancies that may hamper effectiveness of the projects. Synergy
allows project components (e.g. resources, locations, sub-projects, schedules) to be
connected, accessible and traceable. It is the practice that project managers and team
members should develop in order to increase PME (Ziek and Anderson, 2015). It serves as
the antecedent for PME and fosters the accomplishment of successful projects. Therefore,
it is hypothesized that:
H3. Synergy has a significant positive relationship with PME.

Research methodology
Population and sample
The population of this study consists of employees of the public engineering department
in the local councils in Johor, Malaysia. The public engineering department is the
department that is responsible to run various types of projects for its organization.
 However, the scope of this research is focusing on state road maintenance projects. Project
There are 16 local councils in the state with a total of 264 employees. According to Krejcie management
and Morgan (1970), with a population of 264, the required sample size is 160 in accordance effectiveness
with 95% level of confidence and a margin of error of 5 percent. In this study, the
researcher uses a probability sampling method whereby stratified random sampling
technique was employed with stratums within the population. Stratification is an efficient
research sampling design and it provides more information with a given sample size.
“It involves a process of stratification or segregation followed by random selection of
subjects from each stratum” (Sekaran and Bougie, 2010). This sampling technique was
chosen because it is able to increase a sample’s statistical efficiency (Cooper and Schindler,
2006). Once the population has been stratified, a sample of each stratum will be drawn
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:33 27 March 2019 (PT)

using simple random method. In the sampling process, respondents were first divided into
stratums (i.e. by local councils). In this case, it was assumed that there is heterogeneity
across stratums but there was homogeneity within each stratum (i.e. public engineering
departments). After the stratification has been done in the population, a certain percentage
of the respondents in each stratum were drawn out according to the total desired sample
size divided by total elements in stratum. However, in this study, it was discovered that
the number of respondents in certain stratum was considered small compared to others.
For example, Mersing District Council has only 5 employees compared to Iskandar Puteri
City Council with 45 employees. Therefore, disproportionate allocation for within strata
analysis was used to ensure an adequate number of respondents to represent each council.
If it would to use proportionate stratification, the sample size of a certain stratum may be
very small or zero; it may be difficult to meet the objectives of the study. Table I indicates
the number of respondents drawn from the population by using disproportionate
stratified sampling method.

Measures
Measures for the study constructs (i.e. PME, top management support, PM and synergy)
were adapted from the PIP by Slevin and Pinto (1986), team assessment survey by DiTullio
(2010) and project success factors by Chan et al. (2009). However, some of the measures were
created and added by the current authors to fit with the existing work culture in the

Stratum by local councils Number of elements in the stratum Desired sample size

Johor Bahru City Council 37 22

Iskandar Puteri City Council 45 22
Pasir Gudang Municipal Council 22 13
Batu Pahat Municipal Council 20 12
Kulai Municipal Council 21 13
Muar Municipal Council 13 8
Kluang Municipal Council 26 16
Segamat Municipal Council 15 9
Kota Tinggi District Council 12 7
Pontian District Council 8 5
Tangkak District Council 13 8
Mersing District Council 5 5
Yong Peng District Council 7 5
Labis District Council 6 5
Simpang Renggam District Council 7 5 Table I.
Pengerang Local Authority 7 5 Disproportionate
Total 264 160 stratified sampling of
Source: State Local Council Offices, Johor, Malaysia, 2018 the respondents
 IJMPB Malaysian context (i.e. PME2, PME3, PME4, PME5, PME9, PME10, TMS1, TMS2, PM4,
PM5, S6, S7, S9 and S10). Details of the measures were shown in Table II. Likert scale
was used to measure the level of agreement for each of the study construct. The scale was
anchored by 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (neither agree nor disagree), 4 (agree)
and 5 (strongly agree).

Constructs Measures

Project 1. There was a detailed plan (including time, schedules, milestone, manpower
management requirements, etc.) for the completion of the project
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:33 27 March 2019 (PT)

effectiveness (PME) 2. Availability of appropriate tools to measure performance should be in place

3. The time limit for the project is clearly stated
4. Project meetings have well-planned agenda
5. In the case of any project delay, your project team has to put some efforts in trying to
solve the problem
6. The project has no or minimal technical start-up problems because it was readily
accepted by its intended users
7. The project has been completed on time
8. The project has been completed according to the budget allocated
9. The outcomes of the project have usually met the quality standard set by specifications
10. The project has been paid within current year
Project mission 1. The goals of the project were in line with the general goals of the organization
(PM) 2. The basic goals of the project were made clear to the project team
3. I am aware and able to identify the beneficial consequences to the organization of the
success of the project
4. Project team are committed to the achievement of project goals
5. Team members actively participate in decision-making regarding the achievement of
project goals
Synergy (S) 1. The results (decision made, information received and needed, etc.) of planning
meetings were published and distributed to applicable personnel
2. All groups affected by the project know how to reveal problems to the project team
3. Regular meetings to monitor project progress and feedback to the project team were
conducted
4. Members freely and openly discuss ideas and suggestions on how to improve the project
5. Members are sensitive to how their actions, ideas, or contributions will impact the
workload of others in the team
6. Good communication was observed between departments during project implementation
7. Coordination was seen throughout the entire project management phases
8. There are strong informal relationships among departments involved in the project
9. Electronic and integrated system were established among departments during project
implementation
10. All project team members and participants have mutual trust and respect
Top management 1. There is direct upper management involvement in project management
support (TMS) 2. Early involvement of upper management is evidence in project management
3. Upper management shared responsibilities with project team for ensuring the
project’s success
4. I agreed with upper management on the degree of my authority and responsibility for
the project
5. Upper management supported me in a project crisis
6. Upper management has granted us the necessary authority and has supported our
decisions concerning the project
7. Upper management was responsive to the requests for additional resources, when the
need arises
Table II. 8. More responsibilities should be given to every level of management or delegate the
Measures for authority
the constructs Sources: Slevin and Pinto (1986), Chan, Suhaiza and Yudi (2009), DiTullio (2010), the current authors
 Procedure Project
This is a cross-sectional quantitative study by using questionnaire survey method. The management
questionnaire was designed to explore demographic profiles of the respondents as well as effectiveness
obtaining the level of agreement on the indicators of the constructs. A pilot study was
conducted to ensure adequate understanding and reliability of the items. A small sample
size (n ¼ 20) was randomly selected to conduct pilot test prior to the field research on a
larger sample size. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α) for the constructs were found to be
above 0.7 and deemed reliable to proceed with the research (see Table III). In order to have a
better response rate, administered on-site method by Miller et al. (1982) and Snow and
Thomas (1994) was used for data collection. This method requires an instructor to meet the
respondents face to face to answer the questionnaires. It is very efficient in generating large
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:33 27 March 2019 (PT)

amount of data especially when the survey is conducted during a meeting with the
respondents (Snow and Thomas, 1994). The questionnaire survey was then administered
on-site with the help of respective department heads. Participation in the survey was on
voluntary basis. Questionnaires were distributed to the respondents after a short briefing
and collected upon completion of the survey. A total of 169 responses were successfully
obtained and it had surpassed the minimum required sample size. PLS-SEM was used to
conduct data analysis of the study.

Results
Profile of the respondents
The respondents are state local council officers with diploma or degree in engineering and
trained in project management. They are responsible for public project planning, procurement,
execution and submitting claims to the treasury office upon completion of the project. Before
we proceed with data analysis, detection of missing data was conducted and there is no issue
found on unavailability of valid values on the study variables. Profile of the respondents in
terms of gender, experience and age was reported by frequency and percentage in Table IV.
Table IV showed that there is a greater percentage of male respondent (68 percent)
compared to female (32 percent). Majority of the respondents were ranged between the age of
26–35 (55.6 percent) and the lowest age group (18–25) was 6.5 percent, represented by
11 young respondents. Most of the respondents have less than ten years of work experience
(50.9 percent) while there were 19 respondents reported to have work experience of more than
20 years (11.2 percent) and 16–20 years (11.2 percent), respectively.

Measurement model
Convergent validity
A reflective measurement model was used to assess reliability and validity of the measures.
Two step approach was employed to assess the measurement model and structural model as
suggested by Chin (2010). The evaluation criteria of the measurement model focus on internal
consistency reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2017). First,
we assess the constructs and its underlying indicators by using indicator reliability
(Cronbach’s α) and composite reliability. Next, convergent validity was tested based on the

Constructs Number of items Mean Cronbach’s α

PME 10 3.890 0.853

PM 5 4.120 0.745
S 10 3.930 0.944 Table III.
TMS 8 4.013 0.805 Reliability coefficients
Note: n ¼ 20 for the pilot study
 IJMPB average variance extracted (AVE) values. For this study, there were three exogenous
constructs (PM, S, TMS) and one endogenous construct (PME). Table V demonstrates the
results of the measurement model. Based on the analysis results, all the indicator loadings
were above the cut-off value of 0.6 as recommended by Chin (1998). Those with outer loadings
below 0.6 had been eliminated from the scales. The internal consistency reliability (composite
reliability and Cronbach’s α) of the constructs had surpassed the minimum value of 0.7 and

Description (n ¼ 169) Frequency Percentage

Gender
Male 115 68.0
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:33 27 March 2019 (PT)

Female 54 32.0
Age
18–25 11 6.5
26–35 94 55.6
36–45 44 26.0
46–60 20 11.8
Work experience
o10 years 86 50.9
Table IV. 11–15 years 45 26.6
Profile of the 16–20 years 19 11.2
respondents 20 and above 19 11.2

Constructs Indicators Loadings Cronbach’s α Composite reliability AVE

PM PM1 0.7505 0.8557 0.8955 0.6317

PM2 0.8018
PM3 0.7882
PM4 0.8228
PM5 0.8089
PME PME1 0.7704 0.9096 0.9248 0.5524
PME10 0.7003
PME2 0.7309
PME3 0.7028
PME4 0.7882
PME5 0.7499
PME6 0.6733
PME7 0.7371
PME8 0.7591
PME9 0.8095
Synergy S1 0.8059 0.8166 0.8723 0.5782
S2 0.8081
S5 0.7656
S7 0.7074
S9 0.7088
TMS TMS1 0.6068 0.8839 0.9056 0.5479
TMS2 0.6267
TMS3 0.7414
TMS4 0.8169
TMS5 0.8073
Table V. TMS6 0.7854
Results of the TMS7 0.7517
measurement model TMS8 0.7559
 regarded as satisfactory (Nunally and Bernstein, 1994). The AVE values for all the constructs Project
were above 0.5, indicating that the constructs are able to explain more than half the variance management
of its indicators, thus providing evidence of convergent validity (Hair et al., 2017). effectiveness
Discriminant validity
Two measures were used to assess discriminant validity of the constructs and its indicators.
They are the cross loadings method and Fornell–Larcker criterion (Hair et al., 2017). Table VI
shows that all the indicator outer loadings on the associated constructs were greater than all of
its loadings on other constructs. Hence, it indicates that discriminant validity for the constructs
has been established (Hair, Ringle and Sarstedt, 2011). Next, we used Fornell–Larcker criterion
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:33 27 March 2019 (PT)

to evaluate discriminant validity of the constructs. It compares the square root of AVE values of
the construct with its correlation with any other construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
To establish discriminant validity for the constructs, the square root of AVEs should exceed the
values of all the inter-construct correlations (Hair et al., 2011). As indicated in Table VII, all the

Indicators PM PME Synergy TMS

PM1 0.7505 0.4345 0.4874 0.5162

PM2 0.8018 0.3998 0.5055 0.6219
PM3 0.7882 0.4772 0.5894 0.5227
PM4 0.8228 0.5711 0.6485 0.5658
PM5 0.8089 0.6208 0.6573 0.6253
PME1 0.5843 0.7704 0.6554 0.3806
PME10 0.3799 0.7003 0.5584 0.2621
PME2 0.4148 0.7309 0.5499 0.2378
PME3 0.4424 0.7028 0.4260 0.3080
PME4 0.5654 0.7882 0.5795 0.4454
PME5 0.6136 0.7499 0.5910 0.4823
PME6 0.4757 0.6733 0.5024 0.3484
PME7 0.3698 0.7371 0.5232 0.1715
PME8 0.4426 0.7591 0.5001 0.2850
PME9 0.4464 0.8095 0.5348 0.3027
S1 0.6126 0.5867 0.8059 0.4909
S2 0.6119 0.5632 0.8081 0.4824
S5 0.6965 0.5983 0.7656 0.5904
S7 0.4414 0.5168 0.7074 0.1812
S9 0.4196 0.5291 0.7088 0.2907
TMS1 0.3766 0.2275 0.2769 0.6068
TMS2 0.3440 0.1997 0.2408 0.6267
TMS3 0.5071 0.2353 0.3047 0.7414
TMS4 0.5547 0.2828 0.3591 0.8169
TMS5 0.5269 0.3372 0.4285 0.8073
TMS6 0.5101 0.3503 0.4027 0.7854 Table VI.
TMS7 0.5856 0.3908 0.5027 0.7517 Loading and cross
TMS8 0.6982 0.4469 0.5410 0.7559 loadings

Constructs PM PME Synergy TMS

PM 0.7948
PME 0.6456 0.7432 Table VII.
Synergy 0.7387 0.7366 0.7604 Discriminant
TMS 0.7187 0.4416 0.5456 0.7402 validity assessment
 IJMPB diagonal values (square root of AVEs) were higher than the off diagonal values (correlations
between the constructs). Hence, discriminant validity has been exhibited by the constructs.
In short, the measurement model was reliable and valid.

Collinearity assessment
Before we proceed to assess the structural model, the examination for collinearity is
necessary to ensure the path coefficients are not biased. According to the variance inflation
factor (VIF) guidelines, the VIF level should stay below 5 or above 0.20 of the tolerance level
in the predictor constructs to show non-indicative of collinearity (Hair et al., 2017).
Our findings (see Table VIII) indicate that all the predictor constructs’ VIF were well below
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:33 27 March 2019 (PT)

the threshold value of 5, thus providing evidence of non-collinearity.

Structural model assessment. In order to test the hypothetical relationship between
predictor constructs and the target construct, we estimate the significance of the path
coefficients by using bootstrapping procedure (169 cases and 5,000 samples) developed by
Preacher and Hayes (2008). The bootstrap procedure allows estimating of the standard error
which determines the significance of the path coefficient. Next, bootstrap standard error was
used to compute empirical t-value (Hair et al., 2017). We use the coefficient of determination
(R2 value) to measure the model’s predictive accuracy. It represents the amount of variance
in the endogenous construct that can be explained by all of the exogenous constructs
associated to it (Hair et al., 2011). Nevertheless, the model’s predictive relevance was
examined via Stone-Geisser’s Q2 value (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974). The Q2 value is obtained
through blindfolding procedure and it shall be larger than 0 to ascertain the model has
predictive relevance (Hair et al., 2011). Figure 1 and Table IX shows the structural model and
hypothesis testing results of the constructs. First, the predictive relevance of the model (Q2)

Predictor constructs VIF Tolerance level Target construct

PM 2.901 0.348 PME

Table VIII. Synergy 2.055 0.487
Collinearity TMS 1.866 0.536
assessment Note: VIF, variance inflation factor

Top
Management
Support (TMS)
–0.0638

Project management
Project effectiveness (PME)
mission (PM) R2 = 0.567
0.2677*** Q2 = 0.304

0.5736***
Synergy (S)

Figure 1.
Structural model
Note: ***t-values: 2.58 (1 percent)
 is above 0 (Q2 ¼ 0.304), indicating that the model has predictive ability. Next, the R2 value Project
obtained for the endogenous construct is 0.567. According to Hair et al., (2011), the model has management
moderate predictive accuracy and able to explain 56.7 percent of the total variance in PME. effectiveness
The hypothesis testing results in Table IX shows that PM has a positive and statistically
significant relationship with PME (β ¼ 0.2677, p o0.01), thus H2 is supported. The
relationship between synergy and PME was found to be statistically significant and
positively associated with each other (β ¼ 0.5736, p o0.01) thereby accepting H3. However,
the analytical findings in this study revealed that top management support was not
significantly associated with PME (β ¼ −0.0638, pW 0.1). Therefore, H1 is not supported.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:33 27 March 2019 (PT)

Importance-performance matrix analysis (IPMA)

IPMA identifies the relative importance and performance of the constructs toward the target
construct by using total effects (importance) and the average values of the latent variable
scores (performance) (Hair et al., 2017). The results of IPMA suggest major area of
improvement on the relatively high importance and relatively low performance construct. In
the current research model, PME was used as target construct with PM and synergy (S) as
predictor constructs to perform IPMA. The importance-performance map in Figure 2
schematically shows that synergy has the highest importance (total effects) and lowest
performance (average value of latent variable score) (0.58, 74.74) compared to PM (0.27, 79.27).
Therefore, synergy is regarded as the most relevant construct for managerial actions.

Discussion
Based on the results of the study, it was found that PM (β ¼ 0.2677, p o0.01) has a
significant positive relationship with PME. This finding is in line with past research works
that found positive relationship between PM and project success/effectiveness (Pinto, 1986;
Pinto and Slevin, 1989; Clarke, 1999; Cooke-Davies, 2002). Specifically, in determining the

Hypothesis Path β SE t-statistics Decision

H1 TMS → PME −0.0638 0.1003 0.6365 Not supported Table IX.

H2 PM → PME 0.2677*** 0.0994 2.6928 Supported Structural model
H3 Synergy → PME 0.5736*** 0.0795 7.2155 Supported assessment and
Note: ***t-values: 2.58 (1 percent) hypothesis testing

100
90 Synergy,
80 PM, 0.58, 74.74
0.27, 79.27
70
Performance

60
50
40
30
20
10
Figure 2.
0 IPMA results of PME
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 as target construct
Importance
 IJMPB relationship between PM and PME, the finding is similar to a study of Mir and Pinnington
(2014) where it stated that PM at the organization level is the causal factor in meeting
the requirements of a project and assure its effectiveness. Pinto and Slevin (1989) concurred
that PM, goals and direction are important elements for successful projects in the entire
project lifecycle. Chan et al. (2009) echoed in this context by mentioning that it has
already become a priority to establish PM and clear goals in the beginning of each project.
Making plans by developing PM and milestones from the beginning until completion of the
project is crucial for the success and effective management of the project. In return, it
would make sure the entire project complete on time and payment can be made as
scheduled. This study was further supported by previous findings of Chan et al. (2009) that
if PM is made clear to the project team, beneficial consequences would be received by the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:33 27 March 2019 (PT)

organization and the stakeholders.

On the other hand, the statistical results revealed that synergy (β ¼ 0.5736, p o0.01) was
significantly related to PME. This finding is consistent with the studies of Pinto (1986),
Kerzner (1987), Pinto and Slevin (1989), Wateridge (1995), Belout (1998), Cooke-Davies
(2002), and Muller and Turner (2005). Fung (2015) mentioned that team building and
engagement could directly influence project performance outcomes. The extra effect that
synergy would bring to the team is to create a new team culture that includes group norms,
attitudes and practices which foster the achievement of project objectives (Philip, 1984). This
research also emphasizes that project managers should initiate more engagement sessions
to increase team trust and level of synergy among the members. Previous studies by Bechky
(2006) and Dainty et al. (2006) highlighted the importance of coordination and synergy in
handling project related activities and problems. Synergy will result in a dynamic,
spontaneous and informal communication patterns among departments in the organization.
Nevertheless, at the formal level, synergy allows the exchange of planned, deliberate and
organized information within the projects (Wikforss, 2006; Wikforss and Lo¨fgren, 2007). In
fact, project managers are encouraged to diffuse information to all the related parties from
the formal and informal level to produce greater synergistic effects throughout the project
( Jacobsson, 2011). Consequently, everyone has the same goals and moving toward the same
direction to achieve project success.
On the contrary, top management support (β ¼ −0.0638, p W0.1) was found not
significantly associated with PME. This finding is in contrast with the studies of Kerzner
(1987) and Belassi and Tukel (1996). Both researchers stated that visible top management
support and commitment are positively associated with project effectiveness. The plausible
reason to explain our contrast finding is that most respondents perceived PM and synergy
as more directive and interactive in achieving project management effectives. These two
factors maybe more essential in cross-functional cooperation where PME is very much
depending on initiatives implemented by the functional departments at grass-roots level.
Considering the value of R2 of 56.7 percent and predictive relevance (Q2) of 0.304, the
research model is significant in contributing to the literature of project management via PM
and synergy as significant predictors of PME. The research findings are useful to
the management of the local councils to establish policies and procedures that can be
conducive to the achievement of project success. It is believed that this study would also
assist the state government to take constructive measures and establish best practices for
developing the area of public engineering project management.

Managerial implications
The finding of IPMA indicated that synergy is the most important construct for
management improvement activities. It implied that one point increase in synergy, the PME
is expected to increase by 0.58 of the total effect. It is of primary importance for improving
PME. Therefore, managerial actions should focus on the construct of synergy. Managers
 should note the significance of synergy–PME relationship that explains project Project
effectiveness is linked with extensive collaboration, inter-departmental relations, management
interpersonal coordination and close liaisons. Team synergistic efforts can occur with the effectiveness
aid of new technologies such as management information system. Interdepartmental project
activities should be linked with each other via management systems for project status
update and traceability. A rapid information processing capacity and information sharing
help to make synergy feasible and realizable. Sometimes, government entities find that the
project is too complex for local solution. Therefore, only by integration of actions and
overlapping of efforts can the local councils meet the challenges in this age. In order to
create synergy, traditional organizational culture must be confronted to promote less
hierarchical structure to solve cross-functional issues and ensure the team functions
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:33 27 March 2019 (PT)

synergistically (Philip, 1984). Next, although PM is of lower importance compared to

synergy, managers should also need to be aware that PM provides initial clarity of goals
and directions of the project. It is the first important step of project implementation that
conveys the project objectives to the team. Without a clear PM, team members would not
know where the project is heading and how it can benefit the organization and the public.

Limitations and future research

This study has some limitations that need to be addressed in future research. First, this
study uses theories, concepts and constructs rooted in the western culture and may not fully
fit in the Malaysian context. Future research is suggested to use constructs that have been
validated in the Malaysian research setting. Second, this study is solely focus on public
engineering departments and limited to the Johor state local councils. The results of the
study may not able to generalize across other states or other areas of project management.
Future research may consider to broaden the research scope and cover more states in the
country to improve generalizability of the findings. Third, there are numerous constructs
that influence PME in the organization. Despite this study critically investigated only three
constructs, it is believed that the analyzed constructs are not comprehensive. Future
research may include more constructs that would increase the predictive ability of the model
and to wholly understand the predictors of PME. Finally, potential moderators maybe
included in the research model to explore more possibilities in enhancing the relationship
between predictors and the target construct.

Conclusion
This study has successfully identified factors that influence PME in the local councils in
Johor, Malaysia. Based on the findings, it was found that PM and synergy were significantly
associated with PME. The outcome of this study is expected to attract attention of the local
councils’ management as well as the state government to increase the level of synergy
among staffs and departments. In addition, it addresses the need and importance of
formulation and articulation of PM in the most effective and efficient manner.

References
Ahmed, R. and Azmi bin Mohamad, N. (2016), “Exploring the relationship between multi-dimensional
top management support and project success: an international study”, Engineering Management
Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 54-67.
Ali, U. and Kidd, C. (2014), “Barriers to effective configuration management application in a
project context: an empirical investigation”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 508-518.
 IJMPB Andersson, T. and Chapman, R. (2017), “Project strategy for product innovation: the strategic project
management framework”, International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, Vol. 9
No. 4, pp. 328-349.
Aparecida da Silva, L., Pelogia Martins Damian, I. and Inês Dallavalle de Pádua, S. (2012), “Process
management tasks and barriers: functional to processes approach”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 762-776.
Atkinson, R. (1999), “Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon,
its time to accept other success criteria”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17
No. 6, pp. 337-342.
Baiden, B.K., Price, A.D. and Dainty, A.R. (2006), “The extent of team integration within construction
projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 13-23.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:33 27 March 2019 (PT)

Bechky, B.A. (2006), “Coordination in context: a work-based approach to coordination in organization”,

working paper, Graduate School of Management, University of California, San Diego, CA.
Belassi, W. and Tukel, O.I. (1996), “A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in
projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 141-152.
Belout, A. (1998), “Effects of human resource management on project effectiveness and success:
toward a new conceptual framework”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16
No. 1, pp. 21-26.
Besner, C. and Hobbs, B. (2008), “Project management practice, generic or contextual: a reality check”,
Project Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 16-33.
Boonstra, A. (2013), “How do top managers support strategic information system projects and why do
they sometimes withhold this support?”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 31
No. 4, pp. 498-512.
Burgess, T., McKee, D. and Kidd, C. (2005), “Configuration management in the aerospace industry: a
review of industry practice”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 290-301.
Chan, W.K., Suhaiza, Z. and Yudi, F. (2009), “Critical factors influencing the project success amongst
manufacturing companies in Malaysia”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 16-27.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling”, in Marcoulides,
G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295-358.
Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS analyses”, in Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W.W.,
Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and
Applications in Marketing and Related Fields, Springer, Berlin, pp. 655-690.
Clarke, A. (1999), “A practical use of key success factors to improve the effectiveness of project
management”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 139-145.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002), “The ‘real’ success factors in projects”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 164-170.
Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S. (2006), Business Research Methods, 9th ed., McGraw-Hill Companies,
New York, NY.
Dainty, A., Moore, D. and Murray, M. (2006), Communication in Construction: Theory and Practice,
Taylor & Francis, Oxon.
Davis, D.C. and Scaffidi-Clarke, N.M. (2016), “Leading virtual teams: conflict and communication”,
in Normore, A., Long, L. and Javidi, M. (Eds), Handbook of Research on Effective Communication,
Leadership, and Conflict Resolution, IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp. 196-209.
Davis, K. (2017), “An empirical investigation into different stakeholder groups perception of project
success”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 604-617.
De Carvalho, M.M., Patah, L.A. and de Souza Bido, D. (2015), “Project management and its effects on
project success: cross-country and cross-industry comparisons”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 1509-1522.
 De Cooman, R., Vantilborgh, T., Bal, M. and Lub, X. (2016), “Creating inclusive teams through Project
perceptions of supplementary and complementary person–team fit: examining the relationship management
between person–team fit and team effectiveness”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 41
No. 3, pp. 310-342. effectiveness
Dhurup, M., Surujlal, J. and Kabongo, D.M. (2016), “Finding synergic relationships in teamwork,
organizational commitment and job satisfaction: a case study of a construction organization in a
developing country”, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 35, October, pp. 485-492.
DiTullio, L. (2010), Project Team Dynamics: Enhancing Performance, Improving Results, Management
Concepts, Vienna, VA.
Drucker, P.F. (2000), “Managing knowledge means managing oneself”, Leader to Leader, Vol. 16, Spring,
pp. 8-10.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:33 27 March 2019 (PT)

Dvir, D., Sadeh, A. and Malach-Pines, A. (2010), “The fit between entrepreneurs’ personalities and the
profile of the ventures they manage and business success: an exploratory study”, The Journal of
High Technology Management Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 43-51.
Dweiri, F. and Kablan, M. (2006), “Using fuzzy decision making for the evaluation of the project
management internal efficiency”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 712-726.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error: Algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 382-388.
Fortune, J. and White, D. (2006), “Framing of project critical success factors by a systems model”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 53-65.
Fortune, J., White, D., Judgev, K. and Walker, D. (2011), “Looking again at current practice in project
management”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 553-572.
Fung, H.P. (2015), “Moderating effects of project management experience, project team size, project
duration and project value size on the relationship between project manager’s leadership roles
and project team effectiveness in Malaysia”, Journal of Empirical Studies, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 17-33.
Geisser, S. (1974), “A predictive approach to the random effects model”, Biometrika, Vol. 61 No. 1,
pp. 101-107.
Guns, B. (1996), The Faster Learning Organization, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Gupta, R. (2016), “Project mission areas – a managerial innovation for inclusive organizational
development”, Indian Railways, Vol. 59 No. 10, pp. 51-52.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications, California, CA.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, The Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Ika, L.A., Diallo, A. and Thuillier, D. (2010), “Project management in the international development
industry: the project coordinator’s perspective”, International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 61-93.
Jacobsson, M. (2011), “On the importance of liaisons for coordination of projects”, International Journal
of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 64-81.
Joslin, R. and Müller, R. (2016), “The impact of project methodologies on project success in
different project environments”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 364-388.
Jurka, R., Ville, L., Jukka, R. and Johannes, H. (2015), “Top management support in software cost
estimation: a study of attitudes and practice in Finland”, International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 513-532.
Kerzner, H. (1987), “In search of excellence in project management”, Journal of System Management,
Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 30-40.
Kerzner, H. (2018), Project Management Best Practices: Achieving Global Excellence, John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken, NJ.
 IJMPB Krejcie, R.V. and Morgan, D.W. (1970), “Determining sample size for research activities”, Educational
and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 607-610.
Manfreda, A. and Indihar Štemberger, M. (2014), “Factors causing the relationship gap between
top management and IS personnel”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management,
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 107-121.
Mehta, A. and Mehta, N. (2017), “Knowledge integration and team effectiveness: a team goal orientation
approach”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 445-486.
Miller, D., Kets de Vries, M.F.R. and Toulouse, J. (1982), “Top executive locus of control and its
relationship to strategy-making, structure and environment”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 237-253.
Mir, F.A. and Pinnington, A.H. (2014), “Exploring the value of project management: linking project
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:33 27 March 2019 (PT)

management performance and project success”, International Journal of Project Management,

Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 202-217.
Morris, P.W. (1983), “Managing project interfaces: key points for project success”, Project Management
Handbook, 2nd ed., pp. 16-55.
Muller, R. and Turner, J.R. (2005), “The project manager’s leadership style as a success factor on
projects: a literature review”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 49-61.
Mullins, J.W. and Sutherland, D.J. (1998), “New product development in rapidly changing markets: an
exploratory study”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 224-236.
Nunally, J.C. and Bernstein, I. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Olsen, R.P. (1971), “Can project management be defined?”, Project Management Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 12-14.
Petro, Y. and Gardiner, P. (2015), “An investigation of the influence of organizational design on project
portfolio success, effectiveness and business efficiency for project-based organizations”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 33 No. 2015, pp. 1717-1729.
Philip, R.H. (1984), “Team management synergy”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 17-20.
Pinto, J.K. (1986), “Project implementation: a determination of its critical success factors,
moderators, and their relative importance across the project life cycle”, doctorate dissertation,
University of Pittsburgh, PA.
Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1989), “Critical success factors in R & D projects”, Research Technology
Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 31-36.
Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1987), “Critical factors in successful project implementation”, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 22-27.
Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1988), “Critical success factors across the project life cycle”, Project
Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 67-75.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavioral Research Methods,
Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Rahikkala, J., Leppänen, V., Ruohonen, J. and Holvitie, J. (2015), “Top management support in software
cost estimation: a study of attitudes and practice in Finland”, International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 513-532.
Sætre, A.S. and Atkinson, O.T. (2006), University Spin-Offs as Technology Commercialization: a
Comparative Study Between Norway, Sweden and the United States, Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, NTNU, Trondheim.
Samset, K. (1998), Project Management in a High-Uncertainty Situation: Understanding Risk and
Project Management in International Development Projects, Norwegian University of Science
and Technology, Trondheim.
Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R. (2010), Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach, 5th ed.,
John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex.
 Selnes, M. and Mandson, L. (2015), Project Management Efficiency and Effectiveness to Improve Project Project
Control in Public Sector, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU, Trondheim. management
Serrador, P. and Turner, R. (2015), “The relationship between project success and project efficiency”, effectiveness
Project Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 30-39.
Slevin, D.P. and Pinto, J.K. (1986), “The project implementation profile: new tools for project managers”,
Project Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 57-70.
Snow, C.C. and Thomas, J.B. (1994), “Field research methods in strategic management: Contributions to
theory building and testing”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 457-480.
Stone, M. (1974), “Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions”, Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 111-147.
Swink, M. (1999), “Threats to new manufacturability and the effects of development team integration
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:33 27 March 2019 (PT)

processes”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 691-709.

Tan, C.N.-L. and Md. Noor, S. (2013), “Knowledge management enablers, knowledge sharing and
research collaboration: a study of knowledge management at research universities in Malaysia”,
Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 251-276.
Wang, Y., Liu, Y. and Canel, C. (2018), “Process coordination, project attributes and project
performance in offshore-outsourced service projects”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 980-991.
Wateridge, J.F. (1995), “IT projects: A basis for success”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 169-172.
Wikforss, O. (Ed.) (2006), “Kampen om kommunikationen: Om projektledningens
Informationsteknologi”, Research Report, KTH – Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Wikforss, O. and Lo¨fgren, A. (2007), “Rethinking communication in construction”, Journal of
Information Technology in Construction, Vol. 12, May, pp. 337-345.
Young, R. and Jordan, E. (2008), “Top management support: mantra or necessity?”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 713-725.
Young, R. and Poon, S. (2013), “Top management support – almost always necessary and sometimes
sufficient for success: findings from a fuzzy set analysis”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 943-957.
Zidane, Y.J.-T. and Olsson, N.O. (2017), “Defining project efficiency, effectiveness and efficacy”,
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 621-641.
Ziek, P. and Anderson, J.D. (2015), “Communication, dialogue and project management”, International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 788-803.
Zwikael, O. (2008), “Top management involvement in project management: exclusive support
practices for different project scenarios”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,
Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 387-403.

Corresponding author
Choon Hee Ong can be contacted at: ongchoonhee@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com